I recently came up with an idea for a game in terms of the story and game world, but I'm trying to decide between making it 2D or 3D. I would like the game to be more story based, and it it seems like the most engaging, immersive game stories and worlds are in 3D. I was thinking it was because games where players can move around and explore in 3 dimensions helps them feel more part of the game. What do you guys think? Can 2D worlds be as immersive as 3D?

He's asking about immersion, not the story. That happens when you make the player feel like part of the game. This is easier to do with a first person (3D) perspective, but not impossible in 2D. You just have to use methods outside of realism to capture the player.

After spending a great deal of time working in 3D, I would argue it's easier to create an immersive environment in 2D. With 2D, you can create backdrops to set the mood for the level/scene. 3D often offers players the freedom to run all around the place and inspect the things you wish they wouldn't notice.Think of it like the Statue of Liberty; from a distance it looks amazing, up close you'll find she's a dirty girl in need of some serious cleaning.

I think this completely depends on Art Style and the medium through which the story is told. Games like Bastion or Cave Story are perfect in 2D while games like Portal wouldn't be the same unless they were in 3d

Have you considered using an isometric perspective? It's a nice compromise between 2d and 3d since it allows for depth and immersion, but doesn't require an unreasonable amount of artwork and engine work.

Have you considered using an isometric perspective? It's a nice compromise between 2d and 3d since it allows for depth and immersion, but doesn't require an unreasonable amount of artwork and engine work.

True.

One of the main reasons I target isometric is because it looks great and it doesn't take an insane amount of work to make it look great.

Yeah you may want to reformulate the question as: "Considering the time and knowledge I have, can I make a 3D world as immersive as a 2D world?"

To me there is also a subtle difference between immersion and engagement. Immersion means (to me) really feeling part of the world, like being "inside" the world, which is IMHO ultimately better achievable in 3D, although it would require a huge artist & coding investment. "Engagement" means (again, to me) the state of being engaged, being drawn into a game, which has more to do with deep and interesting game mechanics. Tetris, to me, is not very immersing, but immensely engaging.

Personally if the 2d or 3d world is built and has elements in it that make it sustainably enjoyable I dont think it matters if its 2d as you tend not to notice great examples of this are mario and terraria. However if you are building something that you think would be better in 3d ( such as an FPS or RPG) then I would attempt to go for 3d as yes 2d is extremely adaptable however it does limit the effects and is easier to lose interest in if the game is not as inviting.

Choose a style, make it consistent, and make it believable. I've gotten just as immersed within a 2D world as a 3D world. I think one of the secrets to great immersion is all elements of a world work together to create a cohesive experience. To put it another way, it is feeling like each part (the story, setting, characters, mechanics, and graphics) of the game belongs in it. The more all of these aspects work in unison, the more engaging and believable the game world would be, festering deep immersion within the game.

To me, one of the most immersive games I can remember was Super Metroid, on the Super NES.

The factors that contributed to said immersion, in my opinion, where many, including sound and graphic design, but I think the major elements where, on one hand, the open-world nature of the game, and, on the other, the lack of "interruptions".

Regarding the former, I guess that exploration of any kind is an easy way to make someone immersed in something. Think of, for example, when you're reading a Wikipedia article, and then through clicking on links, you end up exploring all sorts of tangential topics until you realize a couple hours have gone by and you're browsing information on Zimbawe's GDP.

Regarding the later, by "interruptions" I mean out-of-game elements that break the illusion. The usual suspect on that regard is the UI, when intrusive elements take too much attention from the game world. A good example, I think, would be the Health/Mana globes in Diablo, so prominent, that a lot of time is spent watching them, instead of getting lost in the actual action.Another easy example are all the "dings!" many games have, like damage scores, power up names, achievement announcements, etc... Things that remind you that you are playing a game.

I think 3d games have it a bit easier because it's easier to identify 3d movement with how we move in the real world, but that is also a weakness, because we can also more efficiently notice when something does not match our real world experience, so 3d games have a head-start, but can come crashing down even harder. Again, in my opinion.

To me there is also a subtle difference between immersion and engagement.

Hmmm, it's mostly semantics, but I'd agree that there's a distinction, if only because we do need a way to differentiate between a player losing herself in the game world, and a player losing herself in the interaction with the game.

Games like Tetris or Bejeweled are very engaging, and you can lose yourself in them until you realize the thing vibrating incessantly is not your phone but your hungry stomach, but at no point do you stop thinking of them as games. You never stop to wonder about where the line blocks come from, or if there is a way to harness the energy released by lightning gems.

Immersive games, on the other hand, make you think in terms of their setting. For example, you might look out a window and wonder about what is out there, even when you logically know that there's only a skybox and nothing else. Or you might interact with an NPC and start seeing them as people, wondering about their lives, rather than as automated quest generators.

This is really a complex subject that I love to think about.

My advice (and opinion) would be that, if you're looking to make an immersive game, focus on making an apparently complex world (it doesn't need to be actually complex, just feel like it is) and make sure to not obstruct the player's view with out-of-world information.

A simple example of how to avoid obstructions would be to avoid having name tags or health bars floating over every creature in the game, and maybe only show those when relevant.

A simple example of how to add apparent complexity (or depth) is to try and design environments as if someone actually lived there. Add doors that make sense, for example, rather than purely gameplay oriented designs, even if they are just decorations.

Wow Oskuro, that's a lot of really useful information! Now that I think about it, I can totally relate to what you said - games that immersed me the most, like the old runescape, tetris, and the elder scrolls have all those elements you described.

Great advice for anyone aiming to make an immersive and engaging game.

I'm actually saving that post so I can refer to it later

And, Oskuro, I would like to hear your opinion on how graphics play a role in immersion?

As for graphics and immersion, I think I kind of explained my opinion on that. As long as the graphics help the player feel immersed, it's ok. When the graphics are obnoxiously pulling the player out of the experience, it doesn't work.

One example I can think of is Fallout 3. The start of the game is very immersive, every graphic, sound and interactive element contributing to the building of the game universe, and then, when you are about to leave the Vault, a pop-up window shows up asking if there is any element of your character you want to adjust before exiting into the big wasteland.

That right there is an immersion breaker, something that reminds you that you're just playing a game.

Talking specifically about graphics... I'd say that the graphic style needs to fit the feeling of the game. For example, a bright colorful style will make it harder for a player to feel immersed in a spooky moody game (in general, there are always awesome exceptions).

So it's not really about 2d, 3d, resolution or effects, but about theme and style working together.

A very simple (and somewhat stupid in retrospect) example is the Silent Hill fog, and how much it helped the feel of the game (stupid because it was a necessity due to hardware limitations).

In the end, like with any artistic composition, it is about trying out what works and what does not work, I guess. So, good luck with that

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org